get_market_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful provenance/freshness context by naming providers and saying each section's meta contains provider and as_of, but it omits rate limits, availability caveats, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence covers the three data sections and the meta note with little waste. It is front-loaded, though the compressed semicolon list could be structured more readably.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema and rich annotations reduce what the description must cover, and it identifies the data sections and providers. However, with 0% input-schema descriptions, it leaves the agent unable to confidently use base/quote/include beyond defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters, but it never mentions base, quote, include, or their defaults. It only indirectly signals market values KR/US and the three data sections, leaving base/quote semantics and include filtering undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names three concrete data sections and their providers, so the resource is identifiable. It does not use a verb or explicitly contrast with siblings, though no sibling covers the same market-calendar/FX/risk-free data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The section list only implies the tool's domain; an agent must infer that it should be called for market hours, FX, and risk-free rate data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.